Meet expresses concern on challenges before civil society

Civil society warn against hijacking house

Living in times of national disorder: Sidharth Mishra

The debate in the Parliament on demonetisation is lying in limbo with the Opposition and the treasury benches unable to find a meeting point to start dialogue. The last word so far in the debate has been from former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.

In his quarter of a century long political career, the veteran public servant for sure has shown the knack to use famous quotes at appropriate times to demolish the adversary. On such occasions, especially when under fire, he has also shown the unique quality to maintain an expressionless silence.

No wonder last fortnight he took refuge once again in quotes to corner Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the policy of demonetisation. Two excerpts from his seven-minute-long address are worth mentioning. The first, “Even those who say that this measure will do harm or cause distress in the short term but be in the interests of the country in the long run should be reminded of what John Keynes said once -- In the long run all of us are dead.”

The second being, “So, in all these measures, convince me that the way this scheme has been implemented is a monumental management failure, and in fact, it is a case of organised loot, legalised plunder of the common people.” The speech immediately reminded me of Singh retaining his traits as politicians even at this ripe age and probably during his last term in Parliament.

In the past fortnight, left to following demonetisation news, as nothing else is getting reported, convalescing on the bed, I have started to ponder on what is making the debate deteriorate to a fathomless sinkhole. If I were to best summarise my feelings, it was encapsulated in a WhatsApp group message, which said, “If you are watching Zee News on status of exchanging cash, there is no problem; if you are watching Aaj Tak, there could be some problem, and if NDTV, the chances of catastrophe are very high.” Then the message went on to pun, “Thus, try and stand in the Zee News queue.”

Then there was this clip going viral of NDTV’s Ravish Kumar being questioned by a young man in Haryana, a ‘Jat Bhai’, for trying to do a negative report on demonetisation. Worse, to overcome his frustration at being outwitted, Kumar, who is celebrated by many, went on air saying that ‘Jat Bhai’ was phoning his friends to come and do whatever to him. Now is this dramatisation of news of any consequence as millions battle crisis to run their daily chores.

Many of us, I am sure, will have a demonetisation story to share. Much more amusing and interesting than those ferreted out by our recalcitrant television medium. Indian TV is much too occupied by the dictum “camera loves sad pictures.” The tragedy of Indian media, especially television, has been its preoccupation with tragedy, playing just on the sadistic elements.

The most hilarious of the sad pictures was former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian pointing out to celebrated anchor Barkha Dutt during her talk show that even he had a swollen ankle and he could not blame it on Modi’s demonetisation policy! A bad pack of lady-fingers purchased from a store, too, gets blamed on Modi, “only if I had cash in hand I would have gone to a roadside vegetable cart.” I wonder if the spunky lady complaining of the lady's fingers would be last person standing when the corporation’s demolition and eviction drive against street vendors happen next.

I underwent the surgeon’s knife last week under, what’s called in medical parlance, a planned surgical intervention at Fortis Escorts Hospital in the national Capital last week .

Past fortnight has certainly shown that other than the leading opposition party of the country – the Congress, all the other outfits have chartered out their well-defined roadmaps for the times to come. Let us first take up the case of other parties and then come back to the Congress to show how in the absence of a mature and strong leadership, the nation’s oldest political parties is slowly but surely scripting its own political demise, with the increasing clamour to elevate him as party head.

First, the issue of the command and control the leadership enjoys over the party: Congress is the only party where the leader is perceived to be seen as functioning through advisor and coteries. A cursory glance on the other parties would make the difference very clear.

At a recent seminar on India-Pakistan relation, a very erudite speaker made a very valid point. He said that we must realise that Pakistan was a drag on our progress and growth and we must learn to be indifferent to matters relating to the terror-sponsoring nation. Now this is easier said than done especially when the North Indian media and Bollywood is so bewitched of happenings in the neighbouring country and matters Pakistan raise such passions across the creative and political quarters.

Therefore I was not really surprised when the leading lights of Indian media, decided to uphold the editorial of Pakistan’s leading daily ‘Dawn’, defending its reporter Cyril Almeida’s report on the differences cropping up between the neighbouring nation’s civil and military establishment following the surgical carried out by the Indian Army commandoes inside Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, as beacon of a brave press.

The ‘Dawn’ report should not be seen in isolation. The day, Cyril Almeida’s story was carried by ‘Dawn’ delineating civilian leadership’s charge against the military establishment, the rival paper ‘The Nation’, which is seen to be closer to the army, carried a report quoting Pakistan army chief Raheel Sharif saying that through Operation Zarb-e-Azb, Pak army had successfully rooted out terrorist infrastructure and also defeated the residual terrorist elements in the form of facilitators. He was quoted as saying that enemies of Pakistan (meaning India) will make efforts to reverse the gains in the fight against terror, but “their nefarious designs will not be allowed to succeed at any cost.”

It’s also important to note that Cyril Almeida’s report was nothing extraordinary,

Last week your reporter had the chance to participate in a seminar on India-Pakistan relations. Held at Delhi University’s fast rising institution Maharaja Agrasen College, the discussions veered from Indus Waters Treaty to the Role of Media in the ongoing crisis in the relation between the two nations.

The audience, which largely constituted of undergraduate students of the political science department of the college and their teachers, sounded more perplexed at the ongoing war within the media than the escalating conflict between the two neighbouring countries. In his very scholarly delineation on the finer points of water treaties, Uttam Kumar Sinha, who is a long-time fellow at the prestigious IDSA and also edits their journal Strategic Analysis, showed that diplomacy over rivers was not as easy as opening or closing water taps.

His advice to the young crowd was to not get carried away by media reports but do their own research and draw conclusions accordingly. In the course of the discussion, a piercing question was shot at your reporter, on the media’s propagandist role and when media had the freedom to act “waywardly” why not the politicians especially with the reference to episodes involving Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi.

The headline is inspired by the famous words of the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah. In 1944, as the world war neared its end, the famous talks between Mahatma Gandhi and Jinnah began on the way forward to Independence. Though Gandhi, in principle, never believed that the Hindus and the Muslims formed two separate nations, as the Muslim League espoused, he agreed to push his close aide C Rajagopalachari’s proposal to “have plebiscite in the districts perceived to be Muslim majority” whether partition was called for.

Rejecting the formula, Jinnah said, “It (the formula) was grossest travesty, a ridiculous proposal, offering a shadow and a husk – a maimed, mutilated, and moth-eaten Pakistan.” Jinnah rejected the formula out of the fear that it would lead to division of Bengal and Punjab.

Ironically a few years later Jinnah was forced to accept “a mutilated, moth-eaten Pakistan,” as the British proposal divided the two states into East and West Punjab and East and West Bengal through the line drawn by Cyril Radcliffe, chairman of the Border Commission. Today Radcliffe Line forms India’s international border with two nations – Pakistan and Bangladesh.

This is extraordinary irony as Pakistan, which continues to “stand by the people of Kashmir”, has been unable to hold onto and govern the territories which India agreed to part with following the notification of the Radcliffe Line on August 17, 1947. In less than quarter of a century, East Pakistan declared Independence.

In journalism, there is one thing for sure, that no reporter is ever Mr Know All. His or her knowledge depends on the desire of his sources, to the quantum and quality of information they would want to share. A reporter’s ability comes into play in authenticating the source’s information on the whetstone of his understanding developed over the years through reporting on a particular subject.

There is another thing for sure that the television anchors, howsoever, urbane or garrulous, have seldom done the requisite legwork to develop that “instinct” which comes from years of spending time in the field and not lecturing in the studio. About a decade ago, in an essay published in an anthology brought out by the Oxford University Press, your reporter had mentioned that the best person to report during the elections are not those trained in political reportage but those who have worked on mundane city beats like crime, sewer, water supply, etc. These city reporters understand the mundane but basic issues and have their finger on the pulse of the voter.

Thus, in the name of reportage on Kashmir, what we are witnessing today across media forums is the dissemination of information as per the desire of the source; and of course on television, each channel playing to their respective galleries. Newspapers, unfortunately, too, are falling prey to “biased” reporting. Today Srinagar has locally bred Kashmiris working as correspondents for the national dailies. This has become one of the biggest stumbling blocks in “fair reporting” on the Kashmir issue.

Books Review

Gateway to CRDJ

Centre for Reforms, Development and Justice (CRD&J) is a body of academics, journalists, intellectuals and social workers registered under the Societies Act. It is based in Delhi.

The avowed aim of the CRD&J is to create public awareness and opinion on the matters confronting the Indian society. In an era when policy making has entered public domain, it is important that articulation of opinion should be based on inputs from the cross-section of society.

CRD&J through its initiatives makes an attempt to consolidate the intellectual capital of the nation and put it in proper perspective without an ideological bias. It believes in liberal debate, assimilation of ideas, analysis of input and free dissemination of information.

The Centre encapsulates the vision of its president Sidharth Mishra, a senior journalist, author and academician. He brings with him a rich experience of exposure to the media and the academic world. He is ably assisted by the honorary secretary of the Centre, Dr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, who teaches political science at Delhi University.